Short or Long Trousers?

[cosmoblue]

For the fellows is it short or long trousers?

[austenfan]

I think balls and parties men would wear breeches with stockings. Everyday wear included long pants; or something like that...

[iamdiverted]

THta's a good question. I'll have to rewatch every adaptation to see what they've done.

[Goblin, esq.]

Trousers would be very informal through most of the Regency period. Breeches and stockings would be worn with evening dress and on formal occasions. During the day, men might wear pantaloons, which were essentially breeches that reach almost to the ankles (much tighter than what we think of as trousers today), and boots.
Very late in the English Regency baggy trousers called "cossacks" made an appearance for day wear, too.

[cosmoblue]

Goblin, esq/Chris - Thank you so much for your reply. I was fairly confused about the pantaloons and breeches. I was watching Regency House Party and the men were wearing all kinds of bottoms in the evening. I am trying to make an outfit for my husband and don't want him to be dressed wrong because I copied one of the costumes from the show. Your outfits on your site are so impressive!

[Goblin, esq.]

Despite everything I said earlier, I have worn pantaloons to a ball:

goblinrevolution.org/cgi-bin/pic_frame.cgi?pic=cyprians.2005-12.jpg;list=indicies/cyprians2005.index;base=costumes

However, these need a lot of work, as they were made without a baggy rear, and with the suspenders on, I can't sit down! I'm planning on piecing some more fabric into the backside to fix this before I wear them again.

[The Major]

chrisber said:

themajor said:

Mssr. Goblin,

I must politely mention that by the latter half of the Regency period that breeches were becoming old fashioned in America. I'm not sure about England. I have seen many writings starting during the War of 1812 and becoming more and more frequent immediately following the war where comments are made about some gentleman dressing in his antiquities referring to this breeches. I assume the gentlemen in their breeches were probably older than the ones making the comments, but I could be wrong. During the War of 1812 breeches or not seems to be a mixed bag, by 1820 America they were nearly extinct - at least in American military circles. Do you know how long the fashion held for the British?

Indeed, I stand corrected. When I think of the Regency in less then rigorous terms, I tend to think of the earlier end of the period, circa 1805-1810, and generally in terms of formal dress, as we mostly put on evening balls in my area.

I don't have the dates handy, but breeches started going out of style during the Regency, first as day wear and towards the end of the period even as evening wear, although they were first replaced by pantaloons, which are essentially breeches extended to mid-calf, and without the buckles, and later by trousers, which were also much tighter than what is commonly worn today.

Mssr. Goblin,

I have switched this discussion of breeches and trousers to a more appropriately named thread. I hope you do not mind.

You are quite correct for the earlier part of the Regency period. Since I pick up at about 1810-1812 and go through to 1833, that is something I have to be conscience of - what year, location, and occasion and I dressing for?

[cosmoblue]

Major thank you so much for moving this information to this thread. I love a gentleman who has a meticulous sense of order.

[Goblin, esq.]

I finally hit the textbooks. Here's what Nora Waugh has to say in The Cut of Men's Clothes:

Breeches were the correct wear with the evening dress coat until c. 1810, and were often worn during the day with tail coats until c. 1830, and always with Court dress. They continued to be worn by the unfashionable until well in the century [...]

Pantaloons were very generally worn until the middle of the nineteenth century ad replaced breeches for formal wear. [...] Until 1817 pantaloons were calf length, and then, they extended to the ankles [...] Straps under the instep kept them taught, but for evening wear the stockings had to be visible. [...]

Trousers appeared very early in the century for informal day wear, and were accepted for informal evening wear from 1817. By 1825 they were in general use, though pantaloons were still considered correct evening wear until the middle of the century. [...]

[...] wider-cut trousers [...] the 'Cossacks' which were inspired by the Czar's visit to London in 1814. They were cut very full and gathered into the waistband and also round the ankles.

[The Major]

Mssr. Goblin,

Is this a text and reference of English origin and intent?

The reason I ask is that I think your focus is more on the lines of the British while in the U.S. there is some debate as to what is meant by 'pantaloon'. In military regulations, letters, and descriptions of goods, for instance, in description of a U.S. Rifleman's clothing the word pantaloon is used and the detail of the garment describes a trouser that includes a built-in gaiter at the bottom as part of the garment itself, not a separate item. This is contradictory of what I used to think of as a pantaloon and what you describe - a garment with the leg length in between that of breeches and trousers. So I'm wondering if the English term and the U.S. term had differences. It wouldn't be the first time I've run across this.

[savivi]

I'm fond of breeches! But I have agree on it being out of mode by the end. I could be wrong, but the male servants continued to wear them, along with the wigs LONG after those not in service stopped.

UGH -- Pantaloons! I like them when they're the slightly longer version of breeches, or when they have the stirrups... but when they're the highwater kind.... icky. There's something about seeing a man's ankle in those highwater pants that bothers me.

And I'm not sure if it's England, but I've seen plates of men with trousers that have a small split at the side seam, so they cover part of the foot and the heel, which solves that problem. (and does anybody remember women's fashion a few years ago where we did that to our jeans?)

Now the hottest thing EVER is a man with his riding boots. -- And speaking of which, didn't the men wear breeches while riding, even after it was out of fashion to wear them anywhere else? I remember them being made of leather. Or were they pantaloons?

[Goblin, esq.]

themajor said:

Mssr. Goblin,

Is this a text and reference of English origin and intent?

The reason I ask is that I think your focus is more on the lines of the British while in the U.S. there is some debate as to what is meant by 'pantaloon'. In military regulations, letters, and descriptions of goods, for instance, in description of a U.S. Rifleman's clothing the word pantaloon is used and the detail of the garment describes a trouser that includes a built-in gaiter at the bottom as part of the garment itself, not a separate item. This is contradictory of what I used to think of as a pantaloon and what you describe - a garment with the leg length in between that of breeches and trousers. So I'm wondering if the English term and the U.S. term had differences. It wouldn't be the first time I've run across this.

I'm certain this is referring to English customs, as Nora Waugh worked in London. (And the Czar's visit to London probably wouldn't have affected fashions in America, not immediately.)

Words do change in meaning, with changes in time and place, and it can sometimes be difficult to keep track of the context. Also, I suspect that words were sometimes used with less precision when they were in daily use. (For instance there are many kinds of armor that have been given distinguishing names today, that in the middle ages were apparently all called simply "mail".)

[dawnluckham]

Major, I may be wrong on this as I really (REALLY) don’t focus on military clothing, but are not the military pantaloons almost an over-garment? – Very similar in many ways to the “fashionable” pantaloon in that it goes further down the leg (as you say incorporating gaiters into the design), with the fashionable pantaloon being a skin tight garment and the military pantaloon intended as an “over-all” garment? I’d love to know if I’ve got it right.

[The Major]

dawnluckham said:

Major, I may be wrong on this as I really (REALLY) don’t focus on military clothing, but are not the military pantaloons almost an over-garment? – Very similar in many ways to the “fashionable” pantaloon in that it goes further down the leg (as you say incorporating gaiters into the design), with the fashionable pantaloon being a skin tight garment and the military pantaloon intended as an “over-all” garment? I’d love to know if I’ve got it right.

Dear Dawn,

I think I follow you. The regulations state pantaloons and describe a garment that goes all the way down the leg into an integral gaiter that covers the ankle, part of the foot/shoe, has a vent on the outside (to allow the foot to pass through) that closes with 3 buttons, and has a stirrup. The pattern we know of being a tighter fitting garment. On original receipts, I have photo copies of a number of them, companies in my regiment were issued pantaloons AND coveralls or overalls (some receipts include and some exclude the 'c'). The overalls being a more loosely fitting garment that could probably fit over the pantaloons or allowed more movement by the wearer with the assumption being that the pantaloons were the normal everyday wear and the overalls were for performing fatigue details, etc. Does that answer your question?